Case law

Penick & Ford Ltd. v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 218 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 19, 1924

The Board of General Appraisers overruled the protest, and from the judgment of the Board of General Appraisers this appeal is taken. … —Brown & Co. v. United States ( 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 93 ; T. D. 40026), [citing cases], Keve & Young v. United States ( 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 103 ; T. D. 40027), Parfums d’Orsay v. United States ( 12 Ct. Cust.

Alda v. Bedford v. Wilson P. Boothroyd and Edgar M. Creamer, Jr.

319 F.2d 200 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 20, 1963

Appellant has appealed from a decision of the Board of Patent Interferences, adhered to on reconsideration, which awarded priority of invention to the appellees. The appellant, Alda V. … Scudder, 1897 CD 724 to Bac v. Loomis [ 252 F.2d 571 ], 45 GCPA 807; 117 USPQ 29 .

In Re Moeller

117 F.2d 565 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 24, 1941

The District Court in Bituminous Products Co. et al. v. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

United States v. Hoyt

16 Ct. Cust. 502 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 16, 1929

It varies in color from yellow to a rich red brown, is remarkably hard and fine grained, and takes a high polish. … Hampton, jr., & Co. v. United, States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 490 , T. D. 40695; Smith v. United States, 143 Fed. 691 ; United States v. Walter, 4 Ct. Cust. Appls. 95 , T. D. 33371; McEnany v. United States, 8 Ct. Cust.

August Guyer, Pascal Matile, Ernst Peterhans and Werner Zollinger v. Charles Robert Cramer, Hans-Peter Meyer and Walter Feist

318 F.2d 757 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 20, 1963

The board in its opinion admitted that. … See Binstead et al. v. Littmann et al., 44 CCPA 839, 242 F.2d 766 .

Angell v. Angell

69 F.2d 646 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 2, 1934

Schuster v. Brown, 21 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 932, 69 F. (2d) 373; Marshall & Levandosky v. Ledwinka, 21 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 728, 67 F. (2d) 495. … Gowen v. Hendry, 17 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 789, 37 F. (2d) 426.

United States v. Bonwit

17 C.C.P.A. 96 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 11, 1929

Elenor V. … Justice BROWN. Do you know where you saw that one you just described and the person by whom carried? Witness. I said I did not want to get the person’s name in the minutes. Justice Brown.

In re Michel

461 F.2d 1384 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 29, 1972

Having considered the scope and content of that prior art, the -differences between it and the claims, and the apparent level of ordinary skill in the art, Graham v. … The board did not find it necessary to consider it, nor do we.

United States v. Faunce

7 Ct. Cust. 426 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 22, 1917

The question before us is whether the present record sufficiently sustains the finding of the board that the merchandise was not ferrosilicon but was iron in pigs. Four witnesses appeared before the board. … Sullivan, who is resident manager of Rogers Brown & Co., a- domestic company which annually handles from 30 to 40 thousand tons of ferrosilicon and from 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 tons of pig iron.

Austin v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 465 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 10, 1911

of the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals in Austin, Nichols & Co. v. … Thereafter the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in the case of Kimpton v. United States (171 Fed.

Chicago Wool Co. v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 641 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 27, 1926

The Board of General Appraisers overruled the protest, General Appraiser Brown dissenting, and the importer appealed. *642 On tbe bearing before tbe board tbe importer submitted testimony from wbicb it appeared that tbe importation … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

In re Burrows

40 F.2d 1011 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 4, 1930

on a display counter, and also is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals refusing to admit and allow claim 26, which was submitted before the Board of Appeals for the first time. … Justice Bradley, in Loom Co. v. Higgins, 105 U. S. 580 , 591: “ Now that it has succeeded, it may seem very plain to any one that he could have done it as well.

Keve v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 94 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 2, 1921

must be accepted as the foreign market value, and therefore affirmed the values as found by the general appraiser, General Appraiser Brown, dissenting. … The Board of General Appraisers, sitting as a classification board, overruled the protest and from that decision the pending appeal was taken.

Warren W. Fitzgerald v. Arbib

268 F.2d 763 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 16, 1959

The Board found the decision of this court in Dieterich v. … Brown v. Barton, 102 F.2d 193 , 26 CCPA 889; Scharmann v. Kassel, 179 F.2d 991 , 37 CCPA 903; Morway v. Bondi, 203 F.2d 742 , 40 CC PA 917; Rieser v. Williams, 255 F.2d 419 , 45 CCPA 953.

United States v. American Metal Co.

12 Ct. Cust. 440 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 3, 1925

The Board of General Appraisers entered judgment sustaining the petition, and the Government appeals. The appellee moves to dismiss the appeal on the ground that this court has no jurisdiction thereof. In Brown v. … In United States v.

In re Scharf

155 F.2d 734 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 7, 1946

(Patents) 882, 886, 147 F. (2d) 701, 64 USPQ 563 ; In re Charles Brown Dalzell et al., 32 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 938, 941, 148 F. (2d) 357, 65 USPQ 215 ; In re Smith, 32 C. C. P. A. … For the reasons stated, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. .

Martin v. Johnson

454 F.2d 746 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 27, 1972

Field v. Conover, supra; in re Eltgroth, 57 CCPA 833, 419 P. 2d 918 , 164 USPQ 221 (1970); In re Brown, 51 CCPA 1254, 329 F. 2d 1006 , 141 USPQ 245 (1964). … Fields v.

Lovell v. Peer

148 F.2d 212 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 5, 1945

Brown v. Childs, 28 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1229, 120 F. (2d) 850, 49 USPQ, 713 ; Brown v. Edeler et al., 27 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1091, 110 F. (2d) 858, 45 USPQ 181 . … The decision of the Board of Interference Examiners is affirmed.

Woolworth Co. v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 176 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 29, 1925

The board held that its order permitting an amendment to the protest was invalid under the decision of this court in United States v. Neuman & Schwiers Co., 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 207 , T. … This conclusion is supported by the general reasoning in the following cases heretofore decided by this court: Brown & Co. v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 93 , T. D. 40026; Scaramelli v. United States, 12 Ct.

In re Best

562 F.2d 1252 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 13, 1977

Appeal from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (board) sustaining rejections of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or 35 U.S.C. § 103 , and claims 3-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 , of appellants … See In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531 , 59 CCPA 1036, 173 USPQ 685 (1972).